Return-Path: <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id QAA10961; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:08:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:08:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <35.3752567.261e4857@aol.com> Errors-To: alcrsb@langate.gsu.edu Reply-To: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: JATDP@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:643] Re: Men's involvement X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 52 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: OR Anson, Interesting that you would refer to "women only" as not creating a normal environment as well as infer that groupings that are all *something* (men, women, black, white) are polarizing. A woman-only group does not automatically infer male-bashing in my mind. I know there are strong opinions on both sides of the issue of positioning, as you have named it, amongst groups who identify in culture, race, gender, age, ablism, etc etc etc. I'm not here to take sides (as I believe that indeed does polarize) but to advocate for a variety of options. I personally find comfort in, say, an all-women spiritual group because I feel especiallly understood, accepted, connected. Certainly this doesn't mean I hate men or would not benefit from spiritual discussions with men. I just like to be with all women sometimes. Just as learning is also sometimes much easier if you are in same gender classrooms. There are articulated differences between the learning preferences of men and women (in general) and some learners find this more true than others. All options, then should be available to suit the individual. Just as your students are happy with mixed gender learning, our students were very happy with single gender learning environments. Both work for different individuals. To me, naming and exploring a particular attribute - male, female, brown, white, Catholic, Muslim - is not polarizing. It is recognizing that we all do have different perspectives, a rich mix, and we all sometimes need to be in the comfort of familiarity and sometimes are required to speak up in diversity. Ignoring our differences makes me feel a bit like we are trying to make those differences invisible. Interesting, what you name as polarizing, I name as making less invisible. We are so different! How this all translates into classroom discussion would be a great thread to follow! Judy Titzel Providence, RI << Creating "women only" topics seems really detrimental to the construction of a sense of "normalcy" for learners, especially learners who feel silenced or disenfranchised by violence (Be it physical abuse or abusive systems.) Polarizing "us and them" "mixed classroom/ women's classroom" seems to make sense at first, but is this really creating a normal environment for learners to work with the issues? >> <<To conclude I really think we should consider shifting away from "us/them", "people of color/white"," male/female" ,"rich/poor" dichotomies in this field. Considering your position within a group is crucial, and more should be done to articulate "positionality" issues in the field through professional development, but polarizing these areas may do more harm than good. It may simply recreate a subtle bigotry cloaked in intellectual sensitivity toward "the other." >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:46:36 EST